Rafael Benitez used Demba Ba instead of Fernando Torres. John Terry was on the bench, as were Cesar Azpilicueta and Oscar, with Branislav Ivanovic used at right-back and Ramires on the right of midfield.

City dominated the first half but broke through in the second, after Mancini turned to his bench.

Pattern

Contests between Mancini and Benitez aren’t exactly mouthwatering – their two previous Premier League meetings had finished 0-0, with the reverse fixture at Stamford Bridge a decent contender for ‘worst Premier League game of the season’.

Here, both coaches named the more defensive of their two possible 4-2-3-1 formats, with Ramires and Yaya Toure in the attacking band of three, rather than charging forward from one of the holding midfield positions. This meant the game had a cautious feel in the opening stages, although City dominated in terms of territory, and got the ball into some promising positions.

Chelsea start cautiously

Benitez set his stall out defensively, ordering his players to play deep and narrow. It was only fifteen minutes before he could be seen on the sideline, shouting ‘compact!’ at his team while doing the now-familiar gesture of pushing his hands together, urging Ba and Juan Mata to drop deep, to prevent Manchester City from finding space between the lines.

His approach was logical. Aguero likes to sprint in behind when playing upfront, so staying deep denies him space there. David Silva likes to drift inside between the lines, which means it was imperative not to allow him time in that zone, while Toure’s at his best when storming forward into space. With no Edin Dzeko, and therefore no significant danger aerially, Chelsea could afford to allow City time on the flanks.

City attacks

But while Toure had relatively little impact on the first half, and Aguero only had one chance when he drifted in behind the defence, City were surprisingly impressive when attacking down the flanks. They were particularly dangerous down the left, where Silva drifted inside and dragged Ivanovic narrow, allowing Gael Clichy to overlap to good effect. It was a surprise to see the Frenchman given so much time on the ball, with Ramires deployed on that flank to provide balance, but often Ramires was too narrow to stop him.

On the other flank, Eden Hazard offered a counter-attacking threat and therefore pinned back Pablo Zabaleta more, but James Milner had a good game, not simply staying wide and stretching the play, but also ducking inside into a pocket of space behind Lampard.

Crosses

There may have been no classic centre-forward threat in the air, but City got around this by Toure and, in particular, Rodwell arriving in the box to get on the end of crosses. It was a slightly unusual approach, but it’s something City have done before – Gareth Barry has scored two headers from open play in the last two months from similar situations. Set-pieces were also a real problem for Chelsea, with City forcing Petr Cech into a couple of saves when players evaded Chelsea’s man-marking.

Chelsea’s counter-attacking threat was sporadic and mainly based around Hazard on the left, and Chelsea’s insistence on staying deep meant that (despite Benitez wanting compactness) Ba often received little support. However, City were also quite good at winning the ball back quickly – Rodwell made a couple of unncessarily hard tackles but provided physicality in the middle, while Garcia had one of his better games for City in a disciplined holding role close to Mata. Ramires, often excellent at taking the ball forward on the run, contributed little going forward as he started in a deeper position. Lampard sprayed passes forward but rarely contributed anything in the final third.

Second half

The game changed in the second half – Chelsea were more attack-minded and their passing became more direct. Ba against Kolo Toure was a battle Chelsea hadn’t explored enough in the first half, and Ivanovic’s long ball behind the defence tempted Joe Hart into a rash tackle – Lampard failed to convert the penalty, but he had been more involved in the attacking third after the break.

But City also stepped up their game, particularly after Mancini’s first substitution. Carlos Tevez replaced Jack Rodwell – which was harsh on Rodwell, who had played well, but City needed attacking invention. Surprisingly, Toure stayed in his advanced role and Milner dropped deeper into midfield, with Silva going to the right and Aguero starting from the left. City’s crossing was less obvious after the break:

Tevez creates space for others

City were fluid, however, and Aguero moved inside from the left-sided position to make runs behind the defence. Whereas this had only happened once in the first half, within three minutes of Tevez’s arrival, Aguero found space in behind twice in quick succession – now the defenders were being brought up the pitch, Aguero’s runs (from a deeper position) were more effective. It’s odd Mancini hasn’t selected Tevez and Aguero together more frequently, as this act of stretching the defence both ways consistently seems dangerous when they’re paired, and Tevez had an important impact before he’d even touched the ball.

Toure also benefited from the extra attacking player, and he waltzed away from John Obi Mikel to open the scoring from the edge of the box. It was odd Mikel should be beaten by Toure for the goal, considering he’d been so impressive against Toure in the recent Africa Cup of Nations competition, and Benitez will be disappointed at the nature of the goal – with this team selection, he was clearly trying to make his side solid in the centre of midfield.

Benitez changes

Benitez made two changes on 68 minutes. Victor Moses on for Frank Lampard, with Ramires moving central, made sense to give Chelsea extra attacking drive. Oscar replacing Hazard was more surprising – Hazard had been Chelsea’s liveliest attacker.

Really, Benitez was constrained by his initial negativity – Chelsea didn’t need Gary Cahill, David Luiz, Ivanovic and Mikel (plus Ashley Cole at left-back) all on the pitch until 81 minutes. A more attack-minded right-back would have been useful (but Benitez couldn’t have replicated a favoured substitution from previous weeks, Azpilicueta for Ivanovic, without being criticised for not introducing an extra attacker).

His final substitution was Mikel off, Torres on. Torres went upfront, Oscar dropped into a deeper midfield position. Benitez obviously felt Oscar alongside Ramires wouldn’t work, so Oscar was was partnered by Luiz, who had stepped forward from defence. Ramires moved from the centre of midfield to right-back, his third position of the game, with Ivanovic shifting inside to become a centre-back.

There was some logic to it – Ramires could now provide a burst of energy from right-back, Luiz offered the back four protection. But this was a relatively small attacking shift that apparently required a complete transformation of his side, with a new centre-back partnership, a new central midfield partnership and a makeshift right-back. Benitez was simply taking off a holding midfielder and putting on a second striker – 4-2-3-1 to 4-4-2. It shouldn’t be that complicated, and the attacking substitution made Chelsea no more dangerous – Tevez’s fine goal put the result beyond doubt.

Conclusion

A surprising feature of this game was Chelsea’s dominance of possession – 53%. Much of this came after they went behind and were forced to come into the game, but City appeared to see far more of the ball. Presumably, Chelsea’s possession was simply in non-threatening zones.

The first half was about Chelsea preventing City working space between the lines, and showing them wide instead – City created a number of chances by attacking down the flanks. After the break, Tevez’s introduction meant other players found more space, while Benitez’s changes were largely ineffective.

23 Responses to “ Manchester City 2-0 Chelsea: Chelsea stay deep, narrow and compact but City find a way through ”

Phil on February 25, 2013 at 11:27 am

Does make you wonder how Barca got rid of Yaya so easily- could have done with him against Milan last week! As always, good analysis, thanks. Benitez starting to look like he’s run out of ideas already..

slightly changing the subject, but reckon Rodwell could be a beast for England, thought of him, Wilshere and Cleverley together in midfield is exciting..

Reedy on February 25, 2013 at 11:56 am

I thought Ramires was horrible, he frequently seemed to lose possession, and wasn’t helping out Ivanovic much on the flank.. don’t know if he was meant to be an ‘out ball’ similar to the Milan winger earlier in the week, ready for counter attacks but I agree Hazards substitution was suprising given how much more effective his forays forward seemed on the break.
Besides the penalty, I thought Lampard had a good game, was spreading the play nicely.

jason on February 25, 2013 at 7:04 pm

I know Benitez was trying to be more defensive but he still should of played Moses wide right.
Not only does he track well its also an option to mix the attacking band of 3 up as they can all switch positions.
Ramires, however cannot drift into various attacking positions, far better as a holding in double pivot in my view

Gerald on February 25, 2013 at 12:46 pm

Sad for Cahill. He had a brilliant game in my opinion & deserved at least a draw. Shame he was let down by the midfield cover. Little chances created by the Chelsea midfield as well. Ba was nowhere to be found. Same story if Torres had played.

kane prior on February 25, 2013 at 2:07 pm

I thought chelsea just lacked a good attacking outlet to relieve pressure. Ba was isolated, mata was denied space by garcia (he looks more comfortable drifting in from wide) and hazard looked dangerous at times but lacked players to link up with. Their fullbacks were too defensive and the lampard doesnt have the energy to link attack and defense any more.

Ramires seemed the best suited to this strategy, breaking from deep, but was completely out of form, losing the ball continuously.

They defended the penalty area well, but didnt track runners from midfield. All in all it was an abject performance from chelseas weakest area in their team, deep midfield. Mikel lacks cover, lampard is declining and ramires seems unsuited to a 4231. Luiz is an option, but then the chelsea defense looks a lot weaker. Some investment in that area is needed for a title push next season.

dearieme on February 25, 2013 at 2:07 pm

Swansea are more fun to watch than either of these sides.

RAHUL KHOND on February 25, 2013 at 3:44 pm

i just read your report and the whole report was about how well city played but why was chelsea poor .if you can remember than this same line up i think was used in the super cup final in the game against athletico madrid and lampard and mikel in the middle . you mentioned that mikel was very good against toure in the ANC . i will take your word for that but for chelsea he had been poor .

mikel is not a natural holding he cannot read games he is not very athletic and nor is a good defender nor can he spread the ball properly . this criticism of him by me had been consistent and most importantly didnt benitez watched that game . another thing is what did benitez saw of him in the practice that he choose him to play with him . although there was a lot of pace for chelsea upfront but there was not a proper engine in the midfield for chelsea to be use it .
steve machmahon had rightly criticized him when he saw the line up before the game and said that he will slow down chelsea . the changes made by rafa benitez after he took off both mikel and lampard should had been the ones with which he should had started the game and most importantly he should had asked mata to come deeper and become more involved the game in developing the moves he was stranded high up the pitch and was nicely marked by garcia .
manicini got his tactics right he had rightly deduced that chelsea lacked pace in the middle and pressed aggressively . i think that even after chelsea would had scored from that penalty they would had won that game .

clearly this is the game where on benitez need to show of his managerial credentials but he failed completely .

Andrew Jaden on February 25, 2013 at 4:01 pm

Noticed one mistake – it’s Hart, not Cech

Other than that, this makes the race for third and fourth far tighter – Arsenal are definitely back in the race, Tottenham may yet get third, and even Everton have a decent chance.

Wonder who’ll be next in the Chelsea hotspot? They need someone capable of accomodating Abramovich’s desire for attacking football, that’s for sure, not a safety-first coach like Benitez (which was a poor choice in the first place IMO).

John on February 25, 2013 at 5:06 pm

I see Ramires mentioned a number of times in this page and I have to agree. From the limited game play that I watched, he stood out pretty obviously as the worst player for Chelsea. Also, IMO Mata had a pretty bad game. Was this a bad game plan by Benitez or did his players just let him down? Not sure.

jason on February 25, 2013 at 5:21 pm

every time I watch Ba play in an chelsea shirt I become more and more worried!!!

Izak on February 25, 2013 at 6:34 pm

I thought City were in more of a 4-3-3 with Yaya spending most of his time on the wide right or having rotated with Aguero or Silva. Milner and Rodwell were both central midfielders in terms of defensive shape, but Milner moved out wider to create overlaps with the attacking three because that was where the defense left space. Garcia stayed much deeper, rather than being part of a double pivot with Rodwell (he, like De Jong before him, looks much more effective as a sole holder. He actually moved himself and the ball around a little rather than just getting in the way like he has partnered with Barry or Yaya in the 4-2-3-1). I thought when they made the Tevez substitution, Milner slid slightly back and Garcia slightly up so that they were functioning as a double pivot.

I understand the idea behind playing Ramires in the wide right slot (defensive cover), but he does seem to come too narrow rather than actually tracking Clichy up the line.

Mikw on February 26, 2013 at 12:46 am

Agree with Izak. That was the first time under Mancini that City started in a 4-3-3 (its the future of the team under Txiki).

Went back to the 4-2-3-1 when Tevez came on with Milner playing more of the traditional holding role than Rodwell was. Rodwell when on the pitch was clearly not holding. Also, I don’t think it was harsh to remove him. It was his first start in months. Mancini is slowly reintroducing him. I think it was in the plan all along to not play him more than 55-60 minutes.

“A surprising feature of this game was Chelsea’s dominance of possession – 53%.”

I wonder how much of this was due to the foul differential (20 to 5 in Chelsea’s favor). How long does it take to setup 15 extra free kicks? I would suggest at least 5-6% of the total game time was wasted there.

chelsea trying out their new 4- M -1 formation there then .lol . seriously love the diagrams. really get a feel for the interaction of the formations.. proper game theory etc . just a couple of general observations… tevez & aguero..still not in double figures for lge goals. and over-rated Silva IMO has just 3 lge goals in 24 lge app’s. funny how the media critique of city focuses on bad defence…off form kompany, and even hart.. true in part, but they have more clean sheets than anyone..true problem has been scoring goals..14 goals less than man u. with 4 “fail to scores”… man u only have 2 “fail to scores” http://www.soccerstats.com/trends.asp?league=england

Mike on February 26, 2013 at 4:17 pm

Simon,

Silva is not overrated in my opinion. You are looking for something he doesn’t do–score goals. His first season he scored 4. His second (when the entire squad was scoring for fun) he scored 6. His job is not to score goals but rather to create them. Besides that, you are right. City isn’t scoring. The reason (IMO) is Mancini. He doesn’t have a plan for when teams park the bus. He tried the dreadful 3-5-2 in a failed attempt to get some width with wingbacks but because this is not Italy where the pace is slow enough for that system to work, it has failed miserably in almost every attempt. Mancini Out!

Failureville on February 26, 2013 at 5:56 pm

Mike and Simon-

I tend to agree with mike that Silva’s value comes from creating goals not from actually scoring them. I wonder, though, is there an empirical way to demonstrate this value. The meat cleaver statistic would probably be assists, but i imagine that number would under-represent Silva’s influence since assists only go to the touch preceding the goal. Any thoughts? Are there advanced metrics for such things? If not, why not? Football deserves a STATS Inc.

While I definitely enjoyed your blog post, which is why I stopped here in the first place, your web site template really caught my eye. Would you be so kind to share where you got it at? Thanks for taking the time to respond.